SEVEN MYTHS OF LAWSON DE-BUNKED
The myths created to prop up the Preferred Option for highway widening and town redevelopment:
MYTH 1
THE HISTORIC SHOPS FRONTING THE GREAT WESTERN HIGHWAY MUST BE DEMOLISHED SO THERE IS ROOM TO WIDEN THE HIGHWAY TO FOUR LANES.
In reality there is room for a four-lane highway with safe convenient parking without demolition.
A plan demonstrating this was developed and presented within Council as early as 1999 but was angrily rejected.
MYTH 2
HIGHWAY BUSINESSES WOULD DIE UNLESS A SERVICE ROAD IS BUILT TO ATTRACT PASSING TRADE.
Restored historic buildings have long been a proven drawcard for tourists. The decision to destroy Lawson's heritage listed highway buildings via the "Preferred Option" was made for nothing other than to clear a space for an enclosed service road with angled parking to attract passing trade.
The single entry point for the service road would be apparent only at close range by westbound motorists. If they were not in the left-most lane a good 50 metres before, they would have enormous difficulty gaining access to service road parking. If they were in that lane they could just as easily turn left and park off-highway!
If the shops were not demolished just for this service road, open parallel highway parking with a transition lane would allow passing motorists more time and opportunity to pull over. This would prove far more efficient in capturing passing trade (see Alternative Plan www.savelawson.org). Yet the desire to build a service road has been curiously obsessive.
This obsession has thrived on the myth that only the service road could capture passing trade - presumed essential to prevent highway businesses from dying. A Retail Assessment used as a basis for ratifying the Preferred Option showed that passing trade is actually dwarfed by local trade. But despite the obvious major importance of local trade to support commercial viability, it has oddly received relatively little consideration in the overall design compared to passing trade at the highway.
This blinkered illogical approach would be risky, complicated, expensive, disruptive and destructive. It would mainly favour private developers rather than the public or shop-holders. Commercial continuity would be difficult in a construction site while replacement shops were built, and this could take years. The prerequisite retaining wall would cut through the rear of some highway shops immediately rendering them inoperable. Perhaps the Preferred Option itself could cause highway businesses to die!
MYTH 3
THE SHOPS LOOK AWFUL. THEY ARE OLD AND DILAPIDATED NOT HISTORICAL AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE KNOCKED DOWN. THIS IS THE PRICE OF PROGRESS.
The highway shops look neglected because they have been threatened by demolition for 40 years! Take away that threat and a different picture could emerge. Council's Heritage Assessment concluded that the shops have unique local historical significance and are in good condition. Council recognised this report in 2006 with amendments to the LEP Heritage Schedule. However there is now a contradiction that an officially recognised historical precinct is to be demolished, a decision made in 1999. Visitors interested in history would see very little of the "Original Blue Mountain" - most of what remains would be wiped out.
A rusty awning and flaking paint doesn't mean a building is not worth restoring. The restored Tahlia House and the Baptist Church in east Lawson are testament to this, as are many restored historic towns around Australia which have thriving tourist industries. Any potential for Lawson to benefit from restored heritage would disappear with the Preferred Option - a high price to pay for so-called progress.
MYTH 4
THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY INFORMED AND CONSULTED. THE PROCESS HAS BEEN FAIR.
The public exhibition for highway options in 1999 was extraordinarily short. Not only was the Preferred Option ratified without heritage studies having been conducted, but the Town Master Plan was also exhibited in 2003 without a Heritage Assessment, delivered to Council months before. The community has only been made fully aware of the Assessment's significant conclusions in 2006! There were no public meetings on a village concept, only occasional RTA information stalls about the Preferred Option. There were two workshops on a master plan, but they were based within the framework of the Preferred Option. Provision of town redevelopment updates has been appalling. The aborted Plan of Management for the historic Mechanics Institute was flawed and confusing. The legalities are still being debated.
MYTH 5
THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMUNITY HAS INDICATED SUPPORT FOR THE PREFERRED OPTION. LET'S MOVE ON.
This is spin, not fact. Yes there is good support for a wider highway and an off-highway town centre with new shops, but no "majority indication" of support to demolish the highway shops. Arguably those who have voiced their opinion via petitions and submissions against the Preferred Option far outweigh those who have voiced their opinion in support of it. Despite the majority of public submissions on the 2003 Master Plan noting very serious flaws, Council ignored them and ratified it regardless. Council has also not yet recognised documented majority support for retaining and refurbishing the Mechanics Institute.
So one could argue that Council and the RTA have been "moving on" with a blinkered determination to demolish Lawson's history, regardless of community opinion or due process. The highway could have been widened long ago as a separate project to town redevelopment - without demolition and allowing plenty of room for off-highway shops, deliveries and a sizeable square. That would have been "moving on" but there doesn't appear to be enough private developer profit that way. So the process drags on.
MYTH 6
THE NEW VILLAGE OFF-HIGHWAY WILL BE VERY CONGENIAL AND SAFE.
The Preferred Option only allows enough room on the Master Plan for a tiny village square and tiny shops, despite the importance given by the community at public workshops to space. The Preferred Option cuts down access routes to the highway, so New Street which dissects the shopping area will be very busy with cars accessing the highway. Hardly congenial or safe. Coles-Myer has edged in as one of the stakeholders, so village atmosphere and local investment may be at risk.
MYTH 7
SIGNALS AT NEW STREET AND SAN JOSE AVENUE, AND A WIDER SAN JOSE BRIDGE, WOULD MEAN SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS TO LOCAL ACCESS AND BUSINESS.
There would be two sets of traffic lights (slowing highway traffic) and a wider bridge, but overall fewer options for local traffic. There would oddly be no left out to the highway at Honour Avenue creating complications especially for tourists. There would be three less right outs to the highway from south Lawson. Hardly significant improvements. Only if a highway underpass were constructed would local access around town improve and congestion in New Street be relieved. It would also support viability of village businesses by encouraging patronage from north Lawson residents who may otherwise find it easier to shop at Wentworth Falls or Hazelbrook. Plans as they are will only magnify the highway divide.
The question is - is "redevelopment" of Lawson driven by community and visitor interests or just local developer interests?
Write to Council, your MP and the Minister for Roads!